House Prepares for Expected Floor Debate This Month

With the House poised to consider “The 527 Fairness Act of 2005” soon after the July 4 recess, CFI issued the transcript (copy attached)
of its June 23 public forum on the subject. The pointed and illuminated
discussion featured two leading Congressional
participants—Representative Albert Wynn (D-MD), co-author of the
legislation, and Representative Christopher Shays (R-CT), co-author of
an alternative approach—and two experts with divergent views, Cleta
Mitchell, Partner at Foley and Lardner LLP, and Trevor Potter,
President of the Campaign Legal Center.

The transcript also includes background materials
prepared by CFI including a side-by-side comparison of the Pence-Wynn
bill and current law, and campaign finance statistics relevant to the
upcoming debate. The video transmission of the forum is also available
at www.CampaignFinanceInstitute.org.

Samples of the discussion:

REP. ALBERT WYNN:

“The Pence-Wynn bill is a philosophically different approach to
campaign finance reform. It says that there is a right for 527s to
participate in the political process and we do not want to abridge that
right in any way. However, there ought to be an equal and balanced
right for political parties to participate in the political process, we
don’t try to attack or regulate 527s. We say let the political parties
raise hard money without these archaic, aggregate limits and the
political process will find balance.”

REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS:

“Now, the first thing we were told when we voted for this bill [BCRA]
was that it would destroy the political parties, that they would be
weakened… Well, we didn’t weaken the political parties; we strengthened
them… We raised more in hard money, limited sums, under this new
campaign finance law that is referred to as McCain-Feingold than under
the combination of hard and soft money. It didn’t weaken the parties at
all. It’s just garbage to suggest that it did. It is simply not true.”

CLETA MITCHELL:

“You have
two choices: you either need to try to regulate them [527s] or you need
to try to give more freedom and balance so the parties can compete. And
if you start regulating the 527s, well, then the next time will be
you’re talking about regulating 501(c) organizations and then we’ll be
figuring out how to shut down speech over here and political activity
over here…Why don’t we just say, let’s fix the parties and then be done
with it?”

TREVOR POTTER:

“What we
have is a proposal to remove the aggregate contribution limit. I don’t
think there’s any way to describe it except to say we bring back huge
individual contributions, only now we’re going to call them hard money
rather than soft… There is a really easy way [for an individual] to
give a million dollars to a political party if this law is passed.”

# 30 #

******

The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit institute
affiliated with the George Washington University that conducts
objective research and education, empanels task forces and makes
recommendations for policy change in the field of campaign finance.
Statements of the Campaign Finance Institute and its Task Forces do
not necessarily reflect the views of CFI's Trustees or financial
supporters. For further information, visit the CFI web site at
www.CampaignFinanceInstitute.org.